User talk:Chadi Saliby

July 2016

Hello, I'm Edison. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Heinrich Schliemann have been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Your edits were not in literate English. "children's" is not the plural of "child." Thus the edits did not leave the article in an acceptable encyclopedic state. Please make sure that each edit is in acceptable English. Edison (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to using a sockpuppet account, differing slightly in name (Chadi Saliby) from a previous account (Chad.Saliby) editing the same article and restoring material which an editor properly removed. If you edit as such you will likely be blocked from editing. The rule is one person, one account. Edison (talk) 04:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chadi Saliby (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC) @Edison:[reply]

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, to remove a whole contribution based on an (‘s). So I made the necessary changes to enhance the structure of this small paragraph. What I don’t accept is your remark (sockpuppet account), it doesn’t need a genius to figure out it is the same person, as I have 2 emails and depending which one I was using at the time!!! That defeat any intention of a puppet account don't you think so?

You edited the article, got reverted and a cautionary note on that account , and then you again added the material using an account with a slightly different user name. It was quite proper for me to caution you against sockpuppeting. Your comment about having a different user account for each email you use makes no sense at all. Edison (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

. . Chadi Saliby (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC) @Edison:[reply]

No it wasn’t appropriate or necessary or even professional to make such a remark edison.

As and according to Wikipedia… the definition of A sockpuppet “is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person.”

So from the account name etc it is obvious it wasn’t the case. SECOND it is not your place to make such a CALL. Understand that, it will help you in the future!!!

You are expected to sign each talk page post with four tildes. If you cannot figure out how to do this, please say so and I will be glad to help. Sockpuppet masters often use slightly different user names. When you edit under multiple usernames and have two or more different talk pages, it is hard for other users to keep track of whether you have been warned for some type of vandalism, or for edit warring. If you have some good reason to use two different usernames, you must state on each user page what other usernames you edit under. Your contribution was lacking reliable sourcing in addition to being ungrammatical. Other editors had pointed out the lack of reliable and verifiable sourcing; I just also pointed out the lack of grammar. No one here is tasked with leaving your unsourced or poorly sourced original research posts while fixing the utterly ungrammatical claim that Schliemann "..had two children’s, john Schliemann(Kassas) and Georges Schliemann(Kassas)." Edison (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation formats

Hello. You gave sources for your edits to Heinrich Schliemann, but your citations need to provide more detail. Page numbers, publishers and dates are particularly important. Readers and editors should be able to check Wikipedia's claims and content for themselves. Verifiability is essential in Wikipedia articles. Please take a look at WP:Citing sources Thanks! Haploidavey (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Meanwhle, could you please reposition your para so that it follows the article's topical and chronological sequence?~~ Actually, no. I've removed it, as the only online source that claims this supposed marriage is a commercial ancestry website (maybe two). Not reliable sources. Haploidavey (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where do your sources back your text?

Look at the sources:[1], [2], [3] and [4]. Please copy and paste where they back your claims about Nazha Arnouk. Or their children. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Saeculis Obscuris

I will rest my case here, as what I have seen is a great example of an institutional racism. First time, someone claims that he can’t find his wife on this source, which is by the way more reliable than Wikipedia in the academic sense, so he removed the whole thing! Second time, another claims that children not with (’s), so he removed the whole contribution!! And NOW, you are saying that it’s not online bla bla bla… I was going to provide the citation but after looking and MOST of the sources don’t even provide that, I knew that the excuses will never stop. I will be initiating a new project to check on the volunteering competence levels process in Wikipedia, because it is sad to see this site reaching this low, and I’ll most definitely use this case as an example in my team.

No, I was not saying that it is not online, I am saying that the sources that you say back your claim don't, ie that you misrepresented your sources. How in the world you can see this as racism is beyond me. If you are going to use this as a case, are you going to make it clear that the sources your provided either didn't meet our criteria (ancestry.com material is often user-generated and thus not by our criteria reliably published, see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY or in the later sources you provided, which are of course online. You haven't provided any sources that aren't online. Your complaint doesn't seem to have any merit whatsoever. Why can't you provide sources that meet our criteria?

Ah, are you really saying that ancestry.com is somehow an academic source? Or do you not realise that we do not use Wikipedia as a source for our own articles as we don't consider it reliably published. Of course studies have shown it to be more reliable than the Britannica, but that's irrelevant. Doug Weller talk 07:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSED

Let’s put this horse from its misery shall we, as I won’t respond to any of your claims. You are now embarrassing yourself, so stop digging deeper!

Now you want to compare Wikipedia to Britannica? WHAT Studies are you refereeing too!!! The tree I provided is backed by “Y-DNA Ancestry Tests Project”, not sure if you even know what I am talk about, hence I won’t waste more time going in loops with you guys. Just contemplate on your first response, saying in your own words…. That you couldn’t find your Wife on that site … HENCE you took off the whole material I’ve added!!! As I said, this conversation is closed, you win and nothing will be added FOR THE TIME BEING!

I'm not surprised that you won't respond to my asking you to show me where your sources mention Nazha Arnouk, since they didn't and you don't seem able to admit that. No, I don't know what the “Y-DNA Ancestry Tests Project” that you mention is, although there are various DNA projects, that one doesn't seem to have a web presence. Perhaps you meant the DNA Ancestry project[5] but that's just a guess. Whatever, you had no sources backing your claim meeting our criteria at WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Serious editors here try to figure out our our policies and guidelines work and when they think they have those on their side use talk pages and noticeboards to discuss them. Others ignore those opportunities and descend to personal attacks and insistence that they are right but don't provide evidence. Have fun with your team if it really exists, but I doubt that you will show them these discussions. And although I'm not going to get into a side argument, the studies are here. Doug Weller talk 14:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

.

First of all, you should at least know the right process to use the TALK !!! Seriously go do some training on using some of many Wikipedia tools. And you seem to have an attitude issue, you shouldn’t even be allowed on platforms like that, very unprofessional… anyway. YES, I do have the exact page and line in my sources, but it seems you don’t read well. I will be presenting this case with my team as a case study… so I‘ll mention all the citation there just to prove my point, better I guess. Now for the Y-DNA, that just show your lack of understanding what and how DNA tests are performed, that displays a very unpleasant lack of knowledge from your end !!! The big question present itself, have you found your wife on that site ? Since that determine if it works or not according to you! By the way a big salute to all the people of Alferton. Now that’s it, I WILL NOT BE RESPONDING TO YOUR PETTY CLAIMS. It Ends Here

Great. I've been using Wikipedia talk pages for over 10 years and 150,000 edits. I have no idea what you mean about the right process but I do note that you need to learn to sign your name on talk pages. What's the problem about my use of talk pages? As for attitude, I've tried to be polite - difficult when your responses evade my questions and just insult me. I know about DNA, I was asking you exactly what your source was. You've misread something as I've never mentioned my wife, and I as you've mentioned several sites I have no idea which you mean.. Other than ancestry.com, which doesn't meet our criteria as a source for this, you haven't provided any sources mentioning Schliemann's wife. Doug Weller talk 12:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it is an attempt at humor when Chaliby asks if you have found your wife on a Y DNA site, since only males inherit Y DNA. Genetic males have XY. Females have only XX. If someone is "transgender" then they may identify with the other genetic gender. In any event, some result on a consumer DNA site would be a primary source and interpretation of it would be original research. This is an encyclopedia, not 23andme.com or Ancestry.com, or Gedmatch.com which are sites catering to the hobby of online DNA genealogy. Edison (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Edison. It's either pretty poor humor or ignorance. I agree with you about the sources. Doug Weller talk 12:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edelson your DNA-Analyse is Completely wrong and a cheap ad Hominem to say the least. You shouldn't be on here seriously !!!

First, you must start signing your posts. Second, who is the "Edelson" you are complaining about? I see no posts on this page by User:Edelson . Edison (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the same token who is Chaliby, It was no mistake since you investigated my accounts and had a cry. So you know quite well how to write my frikn name!!!

This attitude won’t take you places, so keep your tune down and be respectful. I had enough …— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadi Saliby (talk • contribs)

You have been notified once that you are expected to sign your posts on talk pages. This is a second notice that you should sign your posts. Also, please assume good faith and do not launch a personal attack if someone misspells your name.I apologize for spelling it Chaliby instead of Saliby. You seem to have had trouble spelling it consistently yourself, using two different versions for your two accounts. Edison (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User talk:Chadi Saliby, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Edison (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are Welcome

As I mentioned, I will not waste more time. This silly page will be deleted soon just to save you and your friend Doug the embarrassment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadi Saliby (talk • contribs)